Jack Phillips Research Paper

The court favors the Defendant, categorizing the coins to be either embedded or mislaid, thus, the coins will go to the owner, Wenner, not the finder. Although Corliss had a good enough claim using the “finders keepers” rule of treasure trove. But the district court decided that the treasure trove should not be applied in Idaho. The district court is afraid that the treasure trove might be in favor of trespassers in the future. In the end, the district court ruled that the coins belong to Wenner, as land ownership includes the control over the crops on land, building, soils, and minerals buried under those

After Fields conviction had been overturned, The U.S. government decided to appeal Fields case. The Supreme court accepted the case. Fields attorneys are arguing that the Stolen Valor act is unconstitutional. Field attorneys argued that Fields cannot be convicted because he lied. The First amendment protects speech that does not directly harm others.

Washington chose to enforce the ban as it is rationally related to a state interest, therefore related to the exercise of its police powers. In my opinion, Washington 's ban on physician assisted-suicide did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment 's Due Process Clause. Analyzing the guarantees of the Due Process Clause, the Court focused on two main aspects: the protection of our nation 's objective fundamental, historically rooted, rights and liberties; and the cautious definition of what constitutes a due process liberty interest. The Court held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause since its practice has been, and continues to be, offensive to our national traditions and practices. Moreover, employing a rationality test, the Court held that Washington 's ban was rationally related to the state 's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, shielding disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above

His conviction was declared by the Court of Appeals. Lochner plead to the Supreme Court. He stated that the Bakeshop Act was unconstitutional. Like that it interfered with freedoms protected by the 14th Amendment. A man by the name of Justice Holmes agreed with Lochner in stating, “So long as a fundamental right was not violated, the majority’s will should not be struck down”.

Foucha v. Louisiana 1992: The decision made by the Supreme Court in this preceding case was that the basis of dangerousness alone does not justify involuntary commitment. The standard for involuntary committed for civilly committed individuals should remain the same for reason of insanity acquittees. The case of Mr. Y, falls under this precedent. For one, in this precedent case, the acquitted has the burden of proving that he is not dangerous: as stated earlier Mr. Y similarly has the burden of proving that he is not dangerous. Also dangerousness only wouldn’t be enough to detain Mr. Y, and as you can see Mr. Y basis for continued civil commitment is tied to the presence of dangerousness as a result of his mental

However, we must be clear in how we actually see to what extent this as an act of discrimination, or if it actually is at all. The extent to which the effects of discrimination occurs is when an extreme act taken to extreme measures is being imposed on a group of individuals whose rights are being constrained or even threatened by the society. This is definitely not the case here, as the legal obligation is not placed on every baker in the country, conservative or not, to inhibit their services to homosexual couples. In fact the legal obligation placed here is to safeguard the differing views whereby everyone can still practise their human rights without imposing their own beliefs on

In regards to the more contemporary system of incarceration, Robin D.G. Kelley, in the foreword of Davis’ The Meaning of Freedom, refers to Davis’ employment of “negative” liberty (Davis 7). Here, as seen when he states, “This ‘negative’ liberty or freedom places a premium on the right to own property, to accumulate wealth…” Davis and Kelley distinguish that the collective freedoms of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” are not guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution but instead are merely protected from the government’s abridgement” (Davis

“It is not about what we do, but too what we do not do, for which we are accountable.” No action doesn’t amount to no crime but the statute arbitrates create offences of omission. In Bratty V Attorney-General , Lord Denning said that it must be a voluntary act to be punished. Voluntary act is when an individual has complete control and conscious exercise of will on his/her body. Saying if A failed to save B, but A did no positive act to cause B’s death, should A be liable? Omission cannot form the base of actus reus of an offence.

For this theory it seems like the cake baker is still the discriminator even though he is Christian. In Christian beliefs, generally people believe God wants everyone to be kind and not to judge one another; the baker was not being kind and judged the couple because they were gay. Everyone should be treated equally even if they commit “sins”. It was not his place to judge this couple and he should have done the Christ-like thing and made their cake to be a good person even though he didn’t agree with what it stands for. On the other hand, he is following what scriptures read.

Amendment 1 shows equality because it allows people to be themselves and believe in whatever they want to believe in. Amendment #1 states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press,or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It proved the point because it said that the freedom of speech,or of the press,or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.It

In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the court extended the exclusionary rule to the states. Also, the cases illustrated the process of selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Tom Clark held that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter illegally obtaining evidence and to compel respect for the constitutional guarantee in the only effective manner. He also said that a federal prosecutor may make no use of illegally obtained evidence, but a state prosecutor can, but he must operate under the enforceable prohibition of the same Amendment. Justice Tom Clark also said, if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law (FindLaw, 2017).

United States, because the question is being whether the federal obscenity statute violates the First Amendment of the constitution, is different from one dealing with state legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment. The federal government should not be allowed to suppress an individual only because the state has also done it. Justice Harlan states that since the government may protect itself from any revolution, the federal government then has the power to deprive speeches that threaten that security. Nevertheless, given that these cases deal with obscenity, they deal directly with the States, and not the federal government mainly because Congress has no power over sexual moralities. Justice Harlan does not support this conviction being

Fields felt that his First Amendment rights had been violated. He appealed his case to the court of appeals. He argued that it was okay to falsify his claims, because he they were about him. He didn’t harm anyone in lying about himself. The court of appeals overturned his conviction because they thought the Stole Valor Act was unnecessary.

I Introduction In McCloy v New South Wales, the High Court upheld the validity of provisions in the Electoral Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) that imposes caps on political donations, prohibits donations from property developers and restricts indirect campaign contributions in New South Wales. The majority did so on the grounds that whilst each of the provisions burdened the implied freedom of political communication, they had been enacted for legitimate purposes and hence, did not impermissibly infringe upon the implications within the Commonwealth Constitution. The relevant sections were enacted for the legitimate end of preventing the reality and perception of undue influence and corruption of the government, and ensuring equality from a political standpoint. This, they maintained, preserved and enhanced the constitutionally prescribed system of

If one read the Lawrence v. Texas case one will understand that upon further review of the constitution one can see that there is no violation in the constitution that insinuates homosexual sexual activity being against human right. It is only logical that if sexual practices are taking place in the privacy of ones homes regardless of the gender there is no conviction of wrong doing. Equal protection due process protects against discrimination regarding sexuality therefore making it unconstitutional to discriminate anyone based on their sexual orientation. Discrimination of race was overruled unconstitutional due to the famous words of “all mean are created equal… by having life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” (Andersen, M, E.), with life there is liberty of human rights, and with liberty comes happiness with the acceptance of an individual’s identity as one. No one should be discriminated because it goes against the code of the U.S. States and what it states for therefore the overruling of Bowers v. Hardwick after the case of Lawrence v. Texas was considered a well-reviewed case that shows equal protection of due